Talk:Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083149/http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/ACRA_v_Lexmark/ACRA_v_Lexmark_9th_circuit_ruling.pdf to https://www.eff.org/legal/cases/ACRA_v_Lexmark/ACRA_v_Lexmark_9th_circuit_ruling.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070821004733/http://www.lexmark.com:80/lexmark/sequentialem/home/0,6959,204816596_659906197_676633516_en,00.html to http://www.lexmark.com/lexmark/sequentialem/home/0,6959,204816596_659906197_676633516_en,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

reason for the decision

I suspect the reason why the court ruled it was legal is because the consumer made an agreement when they bought the cartridge not to refill it in exchange for a lower price. The reduction in price is the consideration for a contract. Hence it's not actually a boxwrap contract as such- the consumer enters a contract to purchase an ink cartridge in exchange for a certain amount of money plus a promise to return the cartridge when empty. (The way I understand it, functionally you're paying for the ink in the cartridge, not the cartridge itself. Hence needing to return it afterwards.Sstabeler (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)